Sunday, October 21, 2007
The endless punishment of "sex crimes"
Almost ten years ago, a girl of barely seventeen bestowed -- and I use the term advisedly -- a blow job on a boy of almost sixteen, a crime I only wish had been inflicted on me at that age. She is now on a registry of sex offenders, and more or less cannot go to school, get a job, go to church, or find a place to live without violating laws that describe vast radii around schools, churches, parks, hockey rinks and playgrounds prohibited to such people.
There are more than 14,000 people on Georgia's registry, only 38 of which are classified as "predators" -- people who by dint of a mental abnormality or uncontrollable impulse are particularly likely to commit more such offenses (many others are, presumably, hideous people who nonetheless are not "predators"). Our obsession with criminalizing sex is destroying the lives of people who committed -- at worst -- a youthful indiscretion. As the article makes clear, the law now ruins the life of a 17 year-old who snaps a picture of his girlfriend's breasts with his cell phone. Is it really in our interests to destroy such people? How endlessly ought we punish crimes that happen to be connected to sexuality?
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
19 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Oct 21, 06:56:00 PM:
This is one place I depart from the righteous right ... a hummer that's consentual, even between an over 16 year old and under 16 year old should not be a sex crime. Likewise snapping a tit pix on a cell phone.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sun Oct 21, 09:53:00 PM:
I blame 'zero tolerance.' Are people not capable of judgement anymore?
By Fritz, at
Sun Oct 21, 10:28:00 PM:
I totally agree. This is what happens when you worry more about whether or not the justice system is "fair" in the sense of, "is everyone getting the same punishment for the same crime?" or "fair" in the sense of, "does the punishment fit the crime?" Mandatory minimum sentencing is more of the same.
I think that conservatives have the most to answer for in this regard, as the main drivers for harsher and more uniform punishments for crimes, while decreasing the discretion of judges. Not that liberals, with their spineless lack of opposition to such measures, have done anything that really counts - everyone is so afraid of seeming "soft on crime" that I'd be really surprised if we ever saw anything done to correct injustices like this.
By , at
Sun Oct 21, 10:31:00 PM:
I am in complete agreement. Even nude sunbathing in Texas, if seen by 2 people, makes a registered sex offender if convicted on "both" counts of "indecent exposure".
SEW
By , at
Sun Oct 21, 10:48:00 PM:
"I think that conservatives have the most to answer for in this regard, as the main drivers for harsher and more uniform punishments for crimes, while decreasing the discretion of judges."
You're half way right, but if you bothered to follow thru on the thought you would understand that min sentencing laws came about because of public outrage over some of the judges "discretions" in sentencing (especially repeat offenders).
By , at
Sun Oct 21, 10:53:00 PM:
Yes, mandatory sentencing leads to stupid, unwarranted punishments.
So why do we have mandatory sentencing? Is it because many politicians hate people who have a better sex life than them? Or is it because of weak, spineless judges and parol boards who have a history of letting real killers and predators walk out on to the streets to attack the innocent?
Every time that happens, every time a person convicted of 3 killings is released after 6 months (for some stupid reason) and kills again... the media and public scream for harsher, mandatory, sentences.
Solve that problem, and the blunt instrument of mandatory registration and jail time can be put away.
By , at
Mon Oct 22, 01:13:00 AM:
doctorpat, I have a another answer for why we have mandatory sentencing, and it's backed up by some serious social science research. It turns out that crime has been very politicized in this country, to the point that most people's perceptions of crime are far out of proportion to the reality of crime. An excellent example of this trend is the correlation between proximity to crime and punitiveness. While we might expect that people closer to crime and dangerous areas would be more punitive, most studies show the opposite to be true. The most punitive demographic in modern society is the young, white, Southern man, who is least likely to be a victim of crime. The least punitive demographic is the young, black, urban woman, who is most likely to be a victim of crime. For more specifics, you can see Stuart Scheingold's article in "Crime, Community, and Public Policy." The basic idea is that the reason the people remote from crime are so punitive is because they are most susceptible to the rhetoric that the crime problem in this country is verging on catastrophe. The people who experience crime are not convinced because they see reality every day.
As an empirical matter, we have mandatory sentencing because the Democrats wholeheartedly agreed to the idea without thinking about how the predominantly Republican government would implement it. Had the Democrats known what was coming, they doubtlessly would have resisted the push for mandatory sentences and the result would have been a better compromise.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Oct 22, 04:00:00 AM:
"The law" is arbitrary. There is no sanity or justice to be found there, only rote procedure.
"the rule of law" is a vastly overrated concept.
By , at
Mon Oct 22, 11:31:00 AM:
"How endlessly ought we punish crimes that happen to be connected to sexuality?"
How about until we have a Democratic White House and Congress for about seven years? Maybe they'll be able to reverse some of the damage the Moral Police have done over the past seven years.
At age 57, I've seen this country go through a number of changes, but nothing quite like the past seven years. Consider just two things:
1. Prior to seven years ago, no teenage girl ever had her entire life ruined because she gave her boyfriend a blow job.
2. Prior to seven years ago, no child was ever suspended from school for drawing a picture of a gun.
The greatest irony of our time is that the Lefties have been screaming about our "civil rights" being taken away by the Bush Administration, yet it hasn't been our civil rights, but our human rights that have been squelched by the moralists in charge. Our civil rights are alive and well.
But, as a second-grader, just try exercising your 'human' right to draw a stick figure holding a gun and see how far you get.
Zero tolerance in schools and zero tolerance in sex crimes have both come about on the Republican's watch. If you vote for Republicans in the next election because you think they'll keep our country safer than the Democrats (true) and because their financial handling of the country makes the most sense (true), then don't be surprised if, in five years, we're discussing in this blog how some second-grader was placed on the "Racist Registration List" for life because he referred to himself as "white", which, as defined by future law, means he's committed a "racial hate crime" by calling attention to racial differences.
Zero tolerance.
Nor is the current desire to drag us back to the Eisenhower Years solely due to government action. The talk show hosts who have jumped on the pedophilia bandwagon of late, such as Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, are just as guilty as anyone for this thread existing in the first place. I observe how the subject is rife with hypocricy here. The 17-year-old girl in Tiger's article somewhat fits into the last category.
Bottom line, Tige, is if you want national security, a sound economic plan, a solid immigration policy, a sane look at global warming, want harsh penalties for the worst criminals, don't believe in abortion-by-whim, and in general believe in the conservative agenda, then you'd better be prepared to put up with the accompanying morality being shoved down your throat.
I certainly am. The writing was on the wall not long after President Bush took office. Some religious group protested some store in some mall for displaying women's lingerie in the window.
On mannequins.
On the morality front, nothing since that day has surprised me.
By , at
Mon Oct 22, 12:52:00 PM:
Mercury,
I don't think you are correct in the accusations. At any rate, it worked out well for the serial rapist that occupied the White House before W.
By , at
Mon Oct 22, 02:43:00 PM:
"then you'd better be prepared to put up with the accompanying morality being shoved down your throat"
Mercury, I don't think W had anything to do with the blatant male oral sex displayed in public recently in San Francisco. That behavior is more of the moral standards of Clinton/Monica and the "progressive" culture.
And the states make their own laws, that has nothing to do with who is or isn't President.
By , at
Mon Oct 22, 03:38:00 PM:
Wholeheartedly agree. But I don't know that you can hang this all on the social conservatives. There is a strange complicity from the bureaucracy, which tends to run left.
By , at
Mon Oct 22, 11:47:00 PM:
I'm going to let you into a secret. Outside of the borders of the USA, there are other countries. Entire countries with their own laws and everything.
You Americans don't know this, but in those countries, Bush is not president, republicans do not have the power to get democratic state governments to introduce insane laws (by telepathy one imagines), and the last 7 years may have involved government by all manner of left wing, right wing, and centre parties.
They still have mandatory sentencing and crazy school rules that over-react to everything.
So any theory that blames this on a particular political party in your own country is likely to be wrong.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Oct 23, 08:06:00 AM:
That unfortunately rational point brands you as an abvious heretic in most leftist circles in the US.
It's dogma that President Bush is responsible for all evil in the world, either directly (for causing it) or indirectly. (for allowing it)
Niggling details like separation of powers, federalism, and sovereignty don't really enter the equation.
By Fritz, at
Tue Oct 23, 10:16:00 AM:
Because it isn't true. Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws are largely the product of Republican efforts to be "tough on crime." It's not an exaggeration to say that the Republican lawmakers care more about whether punishment is consistent than whether it is fair. If that doesn't make you feel good about voting for them, then sorry.
By , at
Tue Oct 23, 06:04:00 PM:
Contrary to what some have asserted, legislation dealing with sex offenders passes with overwhelming support from both parties, since no legislator wants to appear to be soft on sex offenders. House Bill 1059, the Georgia law passed in March 2006, passed the House by 140-13 and the Senate by 52-1. Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for such legislation
Most sexual abuse of children occurs with family members or people the child knows, which means that House Bill 1059 does not strike at the heart of the issue.
From the Minneapolis STRIB, May 3,2004:
Recent U.S. government studies of 272,111 prison inmates released in 1994 in 15 states (including Minnesota) showed that sex offenders were less likely than other types of offenders to be rearrested within three years for any crime, any felony or any violent crime. But released sex offenders were more likely to be rearrested for a new sex crime.
(Among the felony crimes for sex offenders are registration violations, such as in Georgia living within 1000 feet of a church or a bus stop. The federal government is contesting the bus-stop provision, so thus far it appears that the bus stop provision is not arrestable.)
Any crime Felony crime Violent crime Sex crime
Sex offenders: 43% 32% 17.1% 5.3%
Non-sex offenders#: 68% 57% 21.8% 1.3%
.# Includes both violent and property offenders
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
By Cassandra, at
Wed Oct 24, 02:51:00 PM:
What doctorpat said.
*rolling eyes*
1. Prior to seven years ago, no teenage girl ever had her entire life ruined because she gave her boyfriend a blow job.
Oh puhlease.
2. Prior to seven years ago, no child was ever suspended from school for drawing a picture of a gun.
Dr. Mercury doesn't know what he is talking about. Not to put too fine a point on it, BULLSHIT.
My children are 25 and 28 now.
When they were in middle school... MIDDLE SCHOOL, I worked aboard the Depot Law Center at Parris Island, SC. I watched a 7 year old boy being expelled from school AND his father accused of child abuse, solely because he drew one picture of men in cammies shooting each other.
The boy's father was... you guessed it... a Marine.
And my two boys had drawn pictures just like that at the same age. The episode sent chills down my spine.
Regarding girls having their lives ruined for doing what comes naturally, Dr. Mercury has obviously forgotten the 1950's. Furthermore, consensual oral sex, or sodomy, (even between adults) is still a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail in many states.
Dear Lord, how we love to twist history to suit our political prejudices :p
People are people. Uniformly stupid, regardless of party.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Oct 24, 06:10:00 PM:
And finally, a little history lesson for Dr. Mercury.
The entire "zero tolerance" mentality is a legacy of the CLINTON ERA.
Specifically, zero tolerance on guns in schools in directly traceable to the 1994 Presidential Directive signed by one William Jefferson Clinton mandating ZERO TOLERANCE FOR GUNS IN PUBLICS SCHOOLS, followed closely by the 1994 Gun Free schools act.
After that, students *were* routinely expelled for bringing all sorts of mundane items (such as nail files) to school, first graders were suspended for playing Cops and Robbers (the fiends!) and things pretty much went downhill.
All well before the BushReich destroyed our civil rights and Barney the White House Terrier shredded the Constitution and turned it into bedding for Miz Beasley's next litter of puppies.
And then there was Columbine.
By , at
Sun Oct 28, 11:18:00 AM:
I don't hear much about that 'old news' when people are looking to flay Clinton as a distraction. Truth is, ridiculous law is a bureaucratic trap that assails all established government and agencies. The French Revoltion started over such insanity. Best example ? How about the theocracy of Israel circa 30 A.D. ? Temple government arranged the killing of a rabbi for dissenting from party politics and threatening the 'payola' of organized religion. Jesus.
